UNIT 16 DISASTERS AND DEVELOPMENT

Structure
16.0 Learning Outcome
16.1 Introduction
16.2 Disasters and Development Processes
16.3 Need for a New Paradigm
16.4 Conclusion
16.5 Key Concepts
16.6 References and Further Reading
16.7 Activities

16.0 LEARNING OUTCOME

After studying this Unit, you should be able to:
z Understand the interconnection between disaster and development in both positive
and negative senses;
z Bring out the deficiencies in development planning in this regard; and
z Look at the vision for the future.

16.1 INTRODUCTION
Disaster reduction and coping with disasters touch many areas of human life and society
constituting a core task for sustainable development. Major UN Conferences on Environment
and Development (Rio de Janerio, 1992) and on the Reduction of Natural Disasters
(Yokohama, 1994) have stressed that natural disasters cannot be attributed solely to
natural causes; they are as much a result of incorrect human conduct. The IDNDR
articulates the prime ones as: irresponsible approach to the environment, the proneness
of mega cities to grow out of control and population growth (Sinha, 2003).
Over the past few years, there has been an apparent increase in the number of natural
disasters, and with it, increasing losses on account of urbanisation and population growth.
Clearly, the perspective on development has been one-dimensional, that is, cognisance has
been taken exclusively of the growth aspect, without an eye on sustainability. As a result,
the impact of natural disasters is now felt to a greater extent. According to the United
Nations, in 2001 alone, natural disasters of medium to high range caused at least 25,000
deaths around the world, which is more than double the previous year and economic
losses of around US$ 36 billion. These figures would be much higher, if the consequences
of the many small and unrecorded disasters that cause significant destruction at the local
community level were to be taken into account. Some 75 per cent of the world’s
population lives in areas affected at least once by earthquake, tropical cyclone, flood or
drought between 1980 and 2000.
Disasters and Development 315

However, a purely antithetical understanding of the relation between disasters and

development may not give the true picture. Before we move any further with the
discussion, it may be pertinent to elucidate the meaning of the two terms that will be
frequently referred in this text, that is,’ Disasters’ and ‘Development’. ‘Disaster’ can
be defined as “any serious disruption in the functioning of the society, caused by a
hazard having wide spread human, material, environmental and other losses which
exceed the ability of the affected society to cope using its own resources.” On the
other hand ‘Development’ is a comprehensive social, economical and political process
that aims at the constant improvement of the well being of the population and all
individuals.
It is not development per se, but the character of development that is in question in
regard to sustainable development; the question being: Is development welfare driven or
is it spurred by purely commercial considerations? This can be understood by the damage
suffered in different countries in Asia from the 2004 tsunami disaster. While Maldives, Sri
Lanka, and Thailand suffered from non-ecologically sustainable over-development in
coastal areas; India, Sumatra and North East Sri Lanka, suffered because affected
pockets were inaccessible due to underdevelopment and impoverishment of the people,
which compounded the death toll to tremendous proportions.
Development has to continue, but with due concern for environment protection. Science
and technology can be fruitfully employed to control disasters, such as environmentally
sustainable disposal of nuclear and radioactive waste, development of non-conventional
energy sources, such as bio fuel, which reduces dependence on less sustainable options
such as dams and nuclear energy. Such alternatives are generated by research and
development in science and technology, which needs to be fervently promoted as a
development strategy. There is much emphasis currently on science and technology,
especially information communication technology for better understanding of disasters and
better reach of disaster response efforts.
As per UNDP, there is need for proactive resource commitment on the part of
Governments world-wide to understand the underlying causes behind natural calamities
and inquire into the nature of correlation (whether positive or negative) between these
causes and development which has been propelled significantly over the past few decades
by globalisation. As per the World Bank and the US Geological Survey estimates,
reported in White, Phillip et al (2004), economic losses worldwide from natural disasters
during the 1990s could have been reduced by US$280 billion worldwide if US$ 40
billion were invested in mitigation and preparedness. In Darbhanga district in North Bihar,
a cost-benefit analysis of mitigation and preparedness suggest that for every Indian rupee
spent, the benefits amounted to3.76 rupee. These researches are attributed to Twigg
(2002), World Bank (2004) and Tearfund International (2004). The UNDP catalogues
some of these correlations as: rapid urbanisation with impoverished settlements increasingly
located in ravines, on steep slopes, along flood plains, on unprotected coastlines, along
tectonic fault lines, or near dangerous industrial facilities; environmental degradation
caused by harmful agricultural and industrial practices; climate change leading to rising
seas, coral reef deterioration; increases in cyclones and droughts; economic trends that
are forcing the rural poor to focus on monoculture practices and seek to cultivate marginal
land; and violent conflict which has led to the destruction of forests and wetlands,
poisoning of the environment, and dislocation of peoples. Two factors quite clearly, played
major part in causing the tsunami disaster. Those two factors stem directly from
316 Disaster Management

globalisation: increased global tourism, which has led to a chain of hotels coming up in
vulnerable areas, particularly along the coasts and the consequent destruction of natural
mangroves and forests. As has been explained in Unit 1, a hazard turns to disaster, when
natural phenomenon interfaces with populations and settlements without adequate capacity
to cope with inherent threats.
The Disaster Cycle
Disasters and Development are interrelated, both in positive and negative ways. Skewed
choices in development planning result in adverse consequences for the environment and
people; however, if the same choices are made ‘rationally’ on the basis of hazard
evaluation and risk assessment exercises with an eye on disaster prevention, development
becomes a boon, not a bane, as alleged in every case. The following model (Figure-1)
of Disaster Cycle demonstrates the interconnection between disasters and development.
Development could lead to crisis and disaster. Post disasters, lessons learnt and factored
in subsequent decisions result in ‘sustainable development.’
The concept of a disaster management cycle has emerged which emphasises the
interconnection between the three phases of response, recovery and prevention. Learners
have been apprised of the concept in Unit-2 of this course. Relief, rehabilitation,
reconstruction comprise the recovery phase and inspire subsequent development policy
towards disaster prevention. Hence, they should be studied, not as isolated events but as
integrated, along a linear continuum. The Disaster Cycle, however, has been criticised for
oversimplifying the disaster situation. This is because even though it views the stages as
integrally connected, it still visualises them as occurring along a linear continuum, where
policy returns to the pre -disaster stage of preparedness, if the apprehended disaster does
not occur, when actually, the situation carries the germ/potential of a disaster. Hence,
instead of a disaster cycle, a risk management cycle is considered more appropriate, to
tackle inherent hazards and not just manifest disaster (White, Phillip et al, 2004). The
diagram, Figure-1, of disaster cycle represents disasters and development as integrally
linked, in that they operate as causes and affects of/to the other variable. The concept
of disaster management cycle has significant implications for developing countries like
India. In India the distinction between disaster management and development was clear-
cut as the latter appeared as a non-plan item of expenditure, under “calamity relief.” This
was obviously a misconstruing of the problem, as was soon learnt after a spate of
disasters, when the Orissa Super Cyclone of 1999, Gujarat earthquake and floods in
different states in 2001 set back development a number of years. Hence, the Tenth Plan
announced a paradigm shift in that disaster management would now be appreciated or
perceived with/from a development perspective, and be factored into plan schemes under
relevant sectors. This is in keeping with the concept of disaster management cycle.
Disasters and Development 317

(Source: http://ocw.jhsph.edu/courses/RefugeeHealthCare/PDFs/Lecture17.pdf)
Fig. 16.1: Model of a Disaster Cycle
The interconnection between disasters and development is also brought out by the fact
that public policy has been deficient in many respects. This has resulted in vulnerabilities
that have exacerbated disaster losses that would otherwise not have accrued. For
example, as rightly pointed out by the Sustainable development Network (2005), in poor
countries, planning regulations are such that residents do not have secure tenure to their
properties and are therefore dissuaded from carrying out much needed repairs, which
make the structures weak overtime. Instead of going in for substantial investments which
would provide them safe dwellings, poor residents prefer to live in ramshackle tin huts
which provide little or no resistance to strong currents or wind storms. Besides, since
legal procedures are often time consuming and weak, contracts and other property rights
cannot be enforced, which means financial institutions cannot provide insurance. The
current planning regulations give the bureaucrats too many powers of interjection and
direct interface with the public, which increases the probability of corruption. This lacuna
was made evident by the recent tsunami of 2004. Many such homes were swept away,
even though construction technologies have been developed that can ward off such threats
from the sea to some extent.
Hence, securing property rights, ensuring freedom of contract and unflinching application
of the rule of law are the three basic requirements of a liberal economy, which India is
embarking upon presently. It also has significant implications for disaster management.
Good governance is another eminent requirement. Corruption stalls effective implementation
of poverty alleviation programmes as also disaster relief and response programmes. While
good governance may be hard to define in precise terms, broadly it is conceived as a
government which is transparent with regard to its working and where bureaucrats are
accountable for omissions/commissions. As per the Sustainable Development Network,
“poverty and corruption seem to occur jointly”. Wealthiest countries, as per the Corruptions
318 Disaster Management

Perception Index (2004), such as Finland, New Zealand, Denmark and Iceland, Singapore,
Sweden, Switzerland; Norway, Australia, United Kingdom, Canada, US along with Ireland
and Belgium, are also the most well governed, implying more corruption free, and the
poorest, Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Georgia, Indonesia,
Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Paraguay, Chad, Myanmar, Nigeria, Bangladesh
and Haiti are the poorest and also the most corruption ridden.
There is a positive correlation between wealth and resilience to disasters. While the rich
can secure lives and property by accessing insurance, and retrofitting structures, the poor
cannot access such means. More the economic inequality, greater is the vulnerability of
large masses of people to disasters. Given the negative correlation between economic
development and disaster damage, governments in developing countries could not be
excused for inadequate effort in this regard. Every week, 120,000 people, especially
children would die from preventable diseases, like Malaria, indoor air pollution, malnutrition,
lack of clean water and poor sanitation. These happen exclusively in poor countries due
to lack of economic development and access to technology.
Desideratum of the discussion /arguments stated above, is, that “ only through institutions
of a free society can poor people move from the vicious cycle of poverty and oppression
to a virtuous cycle of empowerment and development” (Ibid).
Public Policy for development of telecommunications and broadcasting infrastructure at the
local level is a critical requirement in disaster response. The same was realised during the
2004 Tsunami, when information about sea surges from affected areas did not reach the
Centre even after 48 hours with the result that aid could not reach these areas in time.
Another factor, which again concerns ‘mainstream’ development, is communication
infrastructure, which was found weak at the field level during the recent tsunami. Since
the information network was highly centralised, information from many affected areas did
not reach the centre in time, which resulted in avoidable catastrophe. The National
Disaster Management Policy enunciated after the Gujarat earthquake in India focused on
early warning and information sharing between agencies that are timely and accurate. As
per Sinha (2003), emphasis areas were: Increase of networking, Resource and knowledge
sharing, Blending science and technology with the ongoing development process, efficient
linkages with other Disaster Management Systems, Adoption of multi-hazard approach
within the paradigm of prevention, mitigation and reduction.
The United Nations has been advocating proactive policy, especially for developing
countries, to preempt/prevent disasters and/or towards mitigating their impact(s) if/when
they strike. Accordingly, the decade of 1990 was declared the International Decade for
Natural Disasters Reduction. The plan of action chalked out in pursuit of the objective
was outlined in the Yokohama Conference of 1994. The strategy is to urge nations to
share technology and expertise between them; the onus clearly is on the developed world,
which has to generate awareness in this regard among poor nations where disasters risk
reduction is still not a priority agenda. Since resource is the prime constraint, United
Nations and other international agencies such as the UNDP, UNIDO, and World Wide
Fund for Nature et al have committed fund assistance for projects to developing
countries. At the same time, developing countries are being prompted to invest more in
disaster prevention and mitigation activities, than relying on foreign aid, which is not the
panacea as has been brought out in experience with recent calamitous events. The United
Nations has declared a five point agenda in their Draft Programme Document in this
regard:
z Ensure that disaster reduction is a national and local priority, with a strong institutional
basis for implementation
Disasters and Development 319

z Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning
z Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience
z Reduce the underlying risk factors
z Strengthen disaster preparedness for early response

16.2 DISASTERS AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES

There is an old saying, ‘an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure’. Prevention
is possible only when mitigation aspects are incorporated in the development planning
process. Disasters resulting from natural hazards, such as flood, cyclone, drought,
earthquake, fire and many more impact development in several ways. Disasters damage
infrastructures, lifeline and critical facilities resulting in human, financial and environmental
losses. Thus, natural disaster risk is intimately connected to the processes of development
(see box ‘a’).
The following are some of the notable success stories of disasters prevention, as read
from different sources:
z In China investment of US$3.15 billion in flood control measures over 40 years is
believed to have averted potential losses of US$12 billion.
z In Vietnam, 12,000 hectares of land of mangroves planted by the Red Cross protect
110 km of sea dykes. While planting and protection cost US$ 1.1 million, the cost
of dyke maintenance was brought down by US $ 7.3 million per year and the
mangroves have protected 7, 750 families living behind the dyke.
z According to Oxfam, the value of cattle saved on a flood shelter of 4 acres in
Bangladesh during the 1998 floods was as much as $150,000 against a construction
cost of only $8.650.
The Evolution of Natural Disaster as a Development Concern
Both researchers and practitioners have been providing compelling evidences for many years that
natural disasters are something more than just acts of God. While this is a broad generalisation
of a very complex and heterogeneous process, one can say that until the 1970s a dominant view
prevailed that natural disasters were synonymous with natural events such as earthquakes,
volcanic eruption etc. From the 1970’s onwards, technical professionals such as engineers,
architects, began to focus on the fact that the same natural hazards had a varying impact on
different kind of structures. The characteristics of a disaster became more associated with its
physical impact than with the natural hazard. Interest grew in the design and implementation of
ways to mitigate losses through physical and structural measures to reduce hazard or to increase
the resistance of structures. Unfortunately, the cost of physical mitigation meant that in many of
the countries efforts to reduce risk by these means have been minimal.
Also since 1970s, but with the increased emphasis in the 1980s and 1990s, research from social
sciences and humanities have argued that the impact of a natural hazard depends not only on
the physical resistance of a structure, but on the capacity of the people to absorb the impact and
recover from loss or damage. The focus of attention shifted to social and economic vulnerability.
The casual factors of disasters thus shifted from the natural event towards the development process
that generated different levels of vulnerability. Vulnerability reduction began to be advanced as
a key strategy for reducing disaster impact.
By the end of the 1990s, it was clear that development processes were not only gathering different
patterns of vulnerability, but were also altering and magnifying patterns of hazard – an augment
that has gained increasing currency as evidence mounts regarding the impact of global climate
change. Risk management and reduction has been advanced as an integral paradigm that builds
on and incorporates all the previous strategies from the perspective that all development activities
have the potential to increase or reduce risk.
Source: A Global Report: Reducing Disaster Risk- A Challenge for Development.
box ‘a’
320 Disaster Management

In order to clarify the ways in which disasters and development interact, it is helpful to
distinguish between economic and social elements of development. These social and
economic development work directly or indirectly to decrease or increase disaster risk.
The table below outlines the relation between social and economical development with
disasters.

Disaster-Development

Economic Development Social Development

Disaster limits Destruction of fixed assets. Damage Destruction of health or

development to transport, communication, education infrastructure and
infrastructure. Erosion of personnel. Death, migration of
livelihood. key social actors leading to an
erosion of social capital.

Development Unstable development practices that Development path generating

causes disaster create wealth for some at the cultural norms that promote
risk expense of unsafe working or living social isolation or political
conditions for others or degrade the exclusion.
environment.

Development Access to adequate drinking water, Building community cohesion,

reduces disaster food, waste management and a recognising excluded
risk secure dwelling increases people’s individuals or social groups,
resilience. Trade and technology and providing opportunities for
can reduce poverty. Investing in greater involvement in
financial mechanisms and social decision-making, enhanced
security can cushion against educational and health capacity
vulnerability. increases resilience.

Looking at the relationship between disasters and development one can identify ‘four’
different dimensions to this relation:
1) Disasters can set back development
2) Disasters can provide development opportunities
3) Development can increase vulnerability and
4) Development can reduce vulnerability
The whole relationship between disaster and development depends on the development
choice made by the individual, community and the nation who implement the development
programmes. Let us now try to understand these ‘four’ different dimensions mentioned
above with suitable examples for a better understanding.
1) Disasters can set back Development: Disasters wipe out decades of economic
and social development, which has taken place over a period of time. In 1982,
hurricane Isaac destroyed 22 per cent of the housing stock in the Togan archipelago.
Reconstruction cost to improve damage to water and sanitation, energy,
telecommunications, roads and railway infrastructure, from flooding in Mozambique in
2000, cost US$ 165.3 million.
Disasters and Development 321

2) These accounts are dramatic,

The 2001 earthquakes in El Salvador and in Seattle in
but the constant drain of the United States resulted in losses of around US$ 2
resources because of frequent billion each. While this scale of loss was easily absorbed
disasters limits development by the U.S economy, it represented 15 per cent of El
potential of million of people Salvador’s GDP for that year.
around the world. In
Vietnam, in “normal” years, flooding destroys on an average of 300,000 tonnes of
food. In addition, unplanned budgetary allocation to disaster recovery can hamper
development interventions and lead to unmet development targets. Thus, disasters can
significantly impede the effectiveness of development resource allocation. The damage
due to disasters is done in many ways and the impacts can be as complex as the
economy itself.
Countries that are normally affected by disasters have also to face the brunt of reduced
human capital, as a large number of populace is affected and are not able to carry out
the routine work. Disasters also reduce availability of new investment, further constricting
the growth of the region. Besides, additional pressure may be imposed on the finances
of the government through investments in relief and rehabilitation work. The increase in the
cost and the frequency of disaster is the direct result of human action. Not only will the
size of a nation’s economy, but also the proportion of its land area exposed to the hazard
determine disaster risk. Almost three quarter of the island of Montserrat was uninhabitable
by the volcanic eruption in 2001. Today 36 per cent of the pre-disaster population
remains and is supported by the United Kingdom.
Disasters can also limit social development. A population that has been weakened and
depleted by natural disaster, particularly when this coincides with losses from HIV/AIDS,
malnutrition or armed conflict, will be less likely to have the organisational capacity to
maintain irrigation works, bunds in the field for water harvesting etc. Without these social
assets, communities become more vulnerable. Women suffer additional stresses in disaster
situations and also bear a disproportionate burden of the additional domestic and income
generating work necessary for survival after a disaster event. When women are exposed
to these additional stresses, the level of social development is reduced. However, over the
long run, it is possible that there is an increase in their economic and political
participation, generating an increase in social development. The exclusion of women from
local decision-making circles in Bangladesh led to women and girls being unwilling to use
cyclone shelters. Currently, inclusions in the decision-making process have improved the
social position of women and encouraging greater use among women has reformed the
management of cyclone shelters there. Disasters are thwarting attempts on the part of
governments to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), particularly, eradication
of extreme poverty and hunger. In Ecuador, the Climate effects of El Nino, in 1997-98,
in combination with an oil shock, increased the headcount poverty rate from 34percent
in 1995, to 46 per cent in 1998. In Honduras, where there was widespread loss in
agricultural output following Hurricane Mitch in 1998, the poverty rate increased from 43
per cent to 46 per cent but more so for rural households. In the Dominican Republic,
headcount poverty increased from 36 to 40 per cent after a combination of drought and
terms of trade shocks in 1990. In larger developing countries, however, such impacts on
MDGs may not be wholly visible since overall national performance may obfuscate
pockets of high impact, where the MDGs were intensely affected. There is therefore need
to develop decentralised arrangements for impact assessments regarding MDGs following
a disaster. Besides, time factor is important since effects of floods or droughts can be
322 Disaster Management

assessed over a longer time frame, while that of earthquakes or hurricanes require shorter
time frame. More reliable indices are expected to emerge with regard to progress in
achievement of MDGs by 2015.
Disasters exacerbate poverty manifold through a range of macroeconomic mechanisms in
that following short-term losses like loss of assets, the more intense long-term impacts
follow from cuts in social spending and post disaster inflation, especially in food prices
following flood or drought. In Zimbabwe, the 1991/92 droughts led to a jump in inflation
to 46 per cent and food price inflation to 72 per cent by the end of 1992. Besides,
disasters cause reallocation of funds and also donor assistance from development to relief
and rehabilitation which usually mean cuts on capital expenditure. This sets up a vicious
cycle of retardation in development and consequent income erosion, which affects the
poor, disproportionately more. Repeat events successively erode the coping capacity of
the poor, initially, selling jewellery or taking loans, to selling productive assets (livestock,
land, housing rights) to survive, and finally, to destitution and distress migration. HIV
AIDS or protracted conflicts as a result of dislocation and loss of social capital owing
to competition for scarce means and loss of social solidarity are known to take over at
this stage. These have set in motion a pernicious cycle in Africa, where destitution
combines with poor governance and disaster risk to create misery that is never ending
since the wherewithal to cope have been nearly annihilated (White, Phillip et al, 2004).
2) Disasters can provide development opportunities: Disaster events often give a
fillip to development, especially in the period immediately following a disaster. They
provide a spur to development policy in the aftermath period. Stephenson and DuFrane
(2002) opine that disasters can elevate the development potential of a society ‘at-risk’
for damage from a hazard. The political impact of damage and disruption can actually be
a catalyst for change. A lot of reconstruction and social development schemes are taken
up which would otherwise have not been paid attention to. Examples include, housing
improvements, land reform, social forestry, restructuring of the economic base due to
resource transfer from other areas, infrastructure development as contingent requirements
etc.
There could be enhanced investments in upgrading administrative capability and training of
personnel involved, which serves long term development goals. Development is also
imparted ‘direction’ in that pockets of underdevelopment, where damage is disproportionate
to the impact of the disaster, get highlighted during such events, which provides guidelines
for future policy in this regard. The Recovery phase gives important indications for
development planning. Reforestation programmes usually follow landslides and flash floods
to check soil erosion, which have spin off effects on other sectors, such as improved air
quality, better flora and fauna, health and longevity for people, etc., which improve
outcomes from ‘mainstream’ development programmes in the form of more sources of
income for the poor, enhanced employment opportunities, better animal husbandry, and
better forest produce for people living in the adjoining areas. Changes in cropping patterns
ameliorate erosion problems, and also losses due to floods and droughts. Programmes for
soil conservation, water harvesting and on farm storage mitigate the effects of droughts.
Hence, development is a variable in both the input and the output aspects of the disaster
mnagement cycle. In fact, it is central to disaster management.
At the request of the Government of India (GoI), The Asian Development Bank (ADB),
the United Nations and the World Bank put together a Joint Assessment Mission (JAM)
comprising experts from different disciplines and relevant vocations to assess the damage
from the Tsunami in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerela and Pondicherry and make
Disasters and Development 323

suitable recommendations regarding Recovery, based on field surveys. The JAM

recommended that national and state authorities treat the tsunami as a “wake up call to
better evaluate vulnerability and improve risk management”. The Tsunami destroyed
fisheries and to a lesser extent, agriculture which affected communities beyond the physical
impact of the tsunami. The JAM recommended that, considering the crosscutting nature
of the disaster’s impact, administrative approach in reconstruction should be participatory,
flexible, decentralised, equitable and transparent, and cover concerns beyond livelihood
restoration to better coastal management and risk management as continuous policy
through realistic, short- term and medium -term goals. Effective hazard risk management
in the future should be less dependent on relief and assistance, which draws valuable
resources from other development goals. Instead there is a need to promote increased
participation of the community in risk transfer insurance, community level risk management
and disaster prevention while giving assistance to those affected. Before the tsunami, the
government had chalked out a coastal regulation zone notification of 1991, which could
not be implemented due to lack of an integrated approach and also understanding of the
provisions of the act, which led to different interpretations by different departments. The
notification required the coastal zone (500 mts. off the High Tide Line) to be classified
into one of four categories and then regulate the type of activities and land uses permitted
in each as per the vulnerability quotient. After a period of lackadaisical activity, the 2004
Tsunami created an opportunity to implement the act with more sense of purpose, since
it has given impetus to studies and analyses into specific requirements in each demarcation
and also the significance of integrated coastal zone management.
Forestry Project in Nepal Combines Development and Mitigation Strategies
The deforestation of Nepal has occurred at an alarming rate, with 50,000 hectares of forest cover
(or 2 per cent of the total forest land) lost each year. This loss of soil protection has resulted
in serious erosion in the mountainous region. There, population density has increased to more
than 500 people per square kilometer of cultivated land. As estimated 80 per cent of Nepal’s
energy used comes from fuel wood, and forests contribute more than 33 percent of the fodder
needs. In addition, increasing numbers of livestock have led to overgrazing, which significantly
contributes to environmental degradation.
During the 1980s, the Government of Nepal began the implementation of a community forestry
programme to counteract these trends. This ongoing project is intended to stimulate increased
production of such forest product as fuel wood, fodder and timber to simultaneously improve rural
welfare and forest conditions. The strategy involves the decentralization of the existing Forestry
Department’s control, and a transformation of its community Forestry and Afforestation Division
from a custodial to a collaborative role, with communities assuming responsibility for planning
and implementing their own forestry projects.
With deforestation, the dangers of environmental degradation, flooding and drought are increased.
The Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, together with funding from United Nations
Development Programme, is pursuing a project to increase community involvement in the
conservation and disaster mitigation practices. Activities being promoted include fodder tree
planting, land use management, training, inclusion of people at the local and district levels in
the planning process, and coordination of forestry activities of all community projects.
By giving the rural farmers the commercial rights to forest products and providing them with
information concerning forest conservation it is hoped that they will have more of an economic
interest protecting forestland and increase its productivity. Special emphasis is placed on training
and extension activities for women who perform most of the work related to forest products in
Nepal.
Working at the grass roots level, Nepal’s community forestry programme is an innovative attempt
to improve the productivity of the land and reduce potential disasters by linking increased
production with protection of forest resources.
Source: Adapted from UNDP Project document # NEP/85/017/b/01/12- Project of Government of
Nepal)
box b’
324 Disaster Management

Development opportunities often are compromised because of excessive focus on relief

assistance, which smothers independence and entrepreneurial effort on the part of people.
Most of it is misdirected or channeled through weak local structures as a result of which
funds get siphoned off. It has been noted that a lot of what is procured as relief could
be locally purchased which endorses the rationale of extending assistance for long/medium
term development (based on resources) through short-term relief instead of conceiving the
latter as being sufficient in itself. Reconstruction management involving vulnerability reduction
of particularly high-risk areas is a development challenge where hazard potential of repeat
events could be substantially minimised. Information regarding physical and socio-economic
vulnerability that is attained during disaster events can be factored into development
strategy for the future. Here, the private corporate sector and the voluntary sector have
significant contribution to make along with the government, especially in the context of the
changing paradigm of public administration, where the government functions as a catalyst
and promoter, and the civil society and private corporate sectors are engaged in actual
service delivery. Since resources flow in from many sources, national and international,
during emergencies, it is an opportune time to reinforce the financial sector by strengthening
the banking structure, housing associations and cooperative credit societies by extending
needed technical assistance and information. It is also time for in-house organisational
reforms within the governmental system, concerning O&M (Organisation and Methods),
involving financial procedures, reporting, monitoring systems, auditing and evaluation
procedures (Stephenson, DuFrane, 2002).
Disasters can also be a major vehicle for carrying out major development programmes.
Changes may occur in new land reforms, Acts and policies being developed, training of
professionals, inducing disaster resilient technologies in the new constructions etc. On the
other hand, development opportunities are missed or compromised because of lack of
awareness and also resistance to accept and introduce new techniques while a new
initiative is being taken up. This takes place because of lack of awareness of detailed risk
factors among decision makers and planners at the national and community level and the
related tendency for development options to be foreclosed when decisions are made
quickly without having full information. A case study of forestry project in Nepal (see box
‘b’ above) reflects how development and mitigation strategies to reduce vulnerability can
be related.
Information management is thus absolutely crucial for rational decision making in this
regard. The significance of decentralised information communication network has already
been highlighted earlier in the text. This leads us to research and development and use
of science and technology integrally in development planning. Thus, there is a great need
to guide and support the Government in developing strategic recovery programmes that
mesh with national development goals and leads to substantial reduction in vulnerability.
Interventions are effective especially when they focus on areas of particularly high risk, for
example, low cost earthquake resistant houses being constructed in areas prone to
earthquakes.
3) Development can increase vulnerability: Social and economic development can
increase the vulnerability of the community to disaster risks. There are many examples,
which show that economic development increases disaster risk. The clearing of protective
mangrove stands for shrimp farming in Bangladesh and Vietnam has increased damage due
to storms and pollution. Widespread deforestation of hill slopes has increased vulnerability
to landslides (White and Phillip, 2004). The massive forest fires in Indonesia in 1997 that
Disasters and Development 325

caused air pollution in neighboring Malaysia were partly caused by the uncontrolled use
of fire by the farmers wishing to expand production of a major export crop for
manufacturing palm oil. Another example that can be cited is tourism development that
benefited Barbados, but which may inadvertently be adding to their own risk as waste
water and recreational sports which contribute to the denudation of coral reefs, which act
as a first line of sea defence against storm surges. Many urban disasters have been
known to result, not from initial shock of the hazard, but from secondary releases from
industrial units that store/use hazardous material. Metropolitan Calcutta and Vadodara are
susceptible to such risks.
It is hard to imagine that increase in social development can increase the risk of disasters.
The only possible situation that would actually place social development as a causal factor
in disaster risk is one where people are forced to expose themselves or others to risk
in order to fulfill their needs and desires. Rapid urbanisation has increased the
vulnerability of the community. The growth of informal settlements and inner city slums
normally inhabited by migrants have often led to development of settlements in vulnerable
pockets like the low lying areas; on steep slopes; along flood plains or close to dangerous
industrial sites. Over 600 million urban dwellers in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the
Caribbean live in life and health threatening homes and neighborhoods as a result of poor
quality housing and inadequate provision of basic needs. These developments impact the
frequency and severity of disasters, exposing a growing proportion of the world’s
population to hazards. As reported in International Federation of Red Cross and Red
Crescent Societies’ (IFRCRCS’s) World Disasters Report, 2004, “while the growth of
mega-cities and mega-risks like earthquakes capture headlines, far more lives in urban
areas are lost to everyday disasters caused by dirty drinking water and sanitation.” In the
last half century, human development has been characterised by rapid and unplanned
urbanisation in the developing world like India. Between 1950 and 2000, the urban
population in the developing countries increased from less than 18 per cent to more than
40 per cent. Nearly half the world lives in urban areas, and numbers are accelerating.
Over the next two decades, 90 per cent of population growth in developing countries will
be urban. Municipalities can’t keep up. In Mumbai, 60 per cent of the city’s 23 million
inhabitants occupy 6 per cent of its total area; an average density of 2,000 people per
hectare. In some slums, 50 families share a single toilet. The land where slum dwellers
settle is often dangerously steep slopes, flood plains, near railway lines, industrial zones.
As building activity spreads, rainwater cannot soak away. Monsoon floodwaters that
remain a few days in well-serviced districts can stay for a month in slums. Since sewage
cannot be controlled the municipalities leave it in the open, which leads to disease and
death, especially reported among infants in Mumbai. Urban livelihoods are also less secure
than their rural counterparts (World Disasters Report, 2004). Unplanned and ill-planned
urbanisation has been the cause for environmental degradation (for example, deforestation),
over exploitation of natural resources (for example, water), ecological disturbance (for
example, pollution) and social destitution (for example, increase in poverty). These factors
turn hazards into disasters. Increased population concentrations and sub-standard
construction increase the vulnerability of the built environment and the fragility of socio-
economic systems. Land use and urban development practices often do not take into
account the susceptibility of natural hazards. United Nations statistics indicate that in the
1990s, close to 70 per cent of construction in the developing countries was built illegally.
Hence, year after year, exposure to natural hazards increases as a result of unsustainable
development.
326 Disaster Management

Since 1991, two-third of the victims of natural disasters, were from developing countries,
while just two per cent were from highly developed nations. Those living in developing
countries and especially those with limited resources tend to be more adversely affected.
With the alarming rise in the natural disasters and vulnerability per se, the world
community is strengthening its efforts to cope with it. Lack of access to education and
information often has wider implications for vulnerability, since people may simply be
unaware of the options open to them for vulnerability reduction. Poor people have far
fewer assets to invest in resources, which may reduce their vulnerability. Poor people are
less likely to be in a position to organise collectively to reduce risks, partially because
poorer people have a high proportion of women, young children, the sick and the
disabled. Furthermore, after a disaster, the effects of malnutrition and chronic illness put
people at additional risk. Thus, natural disaster risk is intimately connected to the
processes of human development.
Although in aggregate terms, development will usually contribute to a reduction in
vulnerability to natural disasters; development activities within an area, might increase
certain types of vulnerability, for example:
z Urban development often leads to an influx of relatively low income groups, with
large scale settlement of marginal land or in high density, poor quality housing.
z Marine and coastal zone development leads to population concentrations, exposed to
possible storm surge, high wind, flash flood and landslide risks. Tsunami and tropical
cyclones can destroy all the development gains.
z Mechanisation of agriculture could be fraught with adverse environmental consequences.
There have been numerous examples to endorse the argument. The rationale of the
argument is that the change being introduced is ‘exogenous’, not based on indigenous
adaptations, which makes it doubtful with regard to suitability/veracity. Endogenous
practices are in consonance with the ecology of the area and the requirements of the
people. Reportedly, long-standing agro-forestry systems in Pacific Islands are threatened
by agricultural modernisation.
4) Development can reduce vulnerability: If development can act as an agent for
increasing the vulnerability of the community; it can also sometimes reduce the
vulnerability of the people. For economic development to proceed without increasing
disaster risk, development planning needs to reconcile some potentially conflicting
drivers for development. First the generation of wealth, that can raise the basic level
of human development and second the distribution of wealth, which can enable the
poorest to overcome human vulnerability. The mainstreaming of disaster risk assessment
into the existing development instruments is critical in achieving economic development
without generating new risk. This includes incorporating disaster resistant technologies
in buildings that are being newly constructed. The Klang River Basin Flood Mitigation
and Environment Management Project in Malaysia is a good example of development
oriented towards risk reduction. The Klang River Basin is rapidly urbanising and its
population is more than 3.6 million, with major proportions of urban land being
converted for urban use. Frequent flooding and degradation of the environment has
also been escalating as urbanisation continues. An Environmental Master Plan is
planned to direct environmental management. The planning aims to improve river
water quality and provide flood warning and protection.
Disasters and Development 327

Apart from economic development, social development too plays a key role in shaping
governance regimes for disaster risk management set within a development agenda. To
reduce disaster risk, governance must be sensitive to the needs of those who are at risk
and able to facilitate timely assistance with appropriate measures. Social development
would include awareness/education, and more importantly, health. Improved health and
education status help reduce vulnerability and can limit human losses in a disaster.
Following the direct impact of a disaster event, a better nourished healthier population, in
which children have also been vaccinated will do much better in homes, shelter and
camps set up for those displaced by disaster.
A literate and better-educated population, including women and girls, is better able to
cope up effectively to any disaster. An educated community will also be in a position to
respond immediately to early warning and other warnings of any disaster.
Impact of Globalisation
Development has progressed at a rapid pace in many developing countries, though
dictated by globalisation, since tourism has grown considerably, and, as a result infrastructure
has come up especially in coastal areas. This has increased considerably the damage
potential of hazards if/when they strike. The developed world is equally at risk since
development has meant more exposure of people and physical infrastructure. Also, many
people have large disposable incomes travel for recreation is high on their agenda, which
makes them vulnerable to unforeseen catastrophes. This has also induced more construction
activity in attractive tourist destinations. Ironically, the most attractive tourist hotspots are
also the most vulnerable to hazards such as floods, cyclones, storm surges, and volcanoes
that mean disasters are almost inevitable. Globalisation undoubtedly has exposed more
people and infrastructure to risks from hazards, besides disturbing the ecological balance
of fragile ecosystems, such as small island states and regions around volcanoes. However,
it would not be practicable to hope any of this would stop. Globalisation is an economic
and political imperative, since the neo-liberal ideology dominates theory and practice in
economics and political science. Rising prosperity in developing countries is providing
newer fillip to the trend towards global integration.
It could be argued however, that increased travel and free trade between countries has
led to economic gains to developing countries where employment opportunities have
grown commensurate to growth in business in the economy. While that is accepted, it
remains an incontestable fact that globalisation also has also widened income disparities
within national boundaries. Opportunities have been availed by the educated elite, while
the poor farmer has also been exposed to precocious competition in that while he is
unable to access European markets, cheaper alternatives from other countries have pushed
his goods out of the market. Reduced subsidies, dearer credit, and improper market
access has put him at a clear disadvantage (Alternate Economic Survey, 2004-05).
Globalisation places too much faith in unregulated markets, reduced state action, to create
condition for human development. However, the balance is unfairly tilted in the favour of
the rich developed nations. Corporate Social Responsibility hasn’t made up for reduced
state action as far as the welfare of the workers is concerned. Unchecked business also
exacerbates environmental degradation and disaster risk through land alienations, unregulated
extraction of primary products and rapid growth of urban slums. In post-cold war, there
has been an increase in trade in arms, etc., which fuel conflicts. Armed conflicts and
disasters are a deadly combination, which have destroyed communities such as in the
Horn of Africa. Globalisation created a new class of deprived in Guyana, where people
328 Disaster Management

lost jobs in the public sector. In the following floods they fell prey to diseases since they
did not have the means to replace lost resources (White, Phillip et al, 2004).

16.3 NEED FOR A NEW PARADIGM

The frequency with which some countries experience natural disasters should certainly
place disaster risk at the forefront of the development planners’ agenda. Measures need
to be taken to integrate disaster mitigation efforts at the local level with the general
exercise of planning. Development programmes and projects need to be reviewed for their
potential to reduce or aggravate vulnerability and hazard. Bringing disaster risk reduction
and development concerns closer together requires three measures:
a) The collection of basic data on disaster risk and the development of planning tools
to track the relationship between development policy and disaster risk;
b) The collection and dissemination of best practices in development planning and policy
that reduce disaster risk; and
c) The galvanising of political will to re-orient both the development and disaster
management sector.
A future ‘blue-print’ for disaster management in India rests on the premise that in today’s
society, while hazards are inevitable, the disasters that follow need not be so and the
society can be prepared to cope with them effectively whenever they occur. The need of
the hour is to chalk out a multi-pronged strategy for total risk management, comprising
prevention, preparedness, response and recovery on the one hand and initiate development
efforts aimed at risk reduction and mitigation, on the other. Only then can we look
forward to “sustainable development”.
Changes in governance style can bring about the desired synergy between development
and attainment of human development objectives. As highlighted in the tenth plan, the
government would henceforth function more as a catalyst and a promoter, while the civil
society and the private corporate sector would be engaged in actual service delivery.
However, there are certain areas where government’s role would actually expand.
Infrastructure provision for rural development especially would demand increased public
investment. The 73rd and the 74th amendments to the Constitution of India have provided
for decentralised governance in India, where local democratic institutions would be
engaged in development planning, enlisting peoples’ participation in interest articulation and
later, at the implementation stage. Certain indications emerge. Henceforth, the requirement
of local infrastructure would be adequately met. Strengthening administration at the local
level would mean ready response on the part of administration to disaster calls, better
warning and information dissemination and better understanding of vulnerabilities since in
a decentralised arrangement, people turn from passive beneficiaries to active participants
in administration. Since the government would be providing most of the infrastructure,
lessons learnt from past experiences would get duly incorporated in development planning.

16.4 CONCLUSION
Disaster management henceforth would be an integral aspect of public policy for
development, which means, physical infrastructure has to be hazard resistant. Resettlement
and rehabilitation of affected populations as a result of development, such as building
Disasters and Development 329

dams has to ensure that displaced poor are not exposed to newer vulnerabilities. Since
disasters adversely affect progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals,
targeted risk reduction needs to be attempted, as per the specific vulnerability identified,
such as, training teachers and students in emergency preparedness and building safer
structures for schools in hazard prone areas, instituting health infrastructure and arranging
for awareness and training in hazard prone areas and also promoting better maintenance
of such infrastructure, promoting awareness of gender concerns and health issues like HIV,
involving communities in such activities in a proactive way (White Phillip et al, 2004).
The aim in all such similar cases should be to minimise the adverse side effects of
development projects if any/apprehended. In this context, siting decisions regarding
projects have to be taken after due consideration, technically, risk assessment, of the
hazard vulnerability of the area. Besides people vulnerability, adverse impact of the
environment if any has to be duly accounted for. To that end, Environment Impact
Assessments or EIA norms/stipulations should be duly complied with. All of these
measures contribute greatly to minimising losses when eventually disasters strike. Development
that proceeds without factoring sustainability concerns leads in time to crisis, and thence,
disaster on encountering unavoidable hazards. Post disaster, after recovery gets underway,
development is embarked upon again, hopefully, factoring vulnerability concerns. For
instance, abiding by building codes and zoning regulations can mitigate future losses from
similar events, such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones. Besides saving lives, such
measures protect high value economic property, such as educational, medical hospitality,
entertainment and industrial facilities.
While natural disasters could not be completely averted, damages accruing resultantly
could be significantly minimised, if policy planners in the course of ‘mainstream’ development
planning make the right choices. The onus is on the government, the international
community and the people alike, since public policy towards disaster mitigation/preventive
policy is an integral concern and depends on the Risk Perception among policy makers,
and also the public for effective interest articulation on their part for public policy
regarding sustainable development

16.5 KEY CONCEPTS

Sustainable Development : Development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key
concepts: the concept of “needs”, in particular the
essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding
priority should be given; and the idea of limitations
imposed by the state of technology and social
organisation on the environment’s ability to meet present
and the future needs. (Brundtland Commission, 1987)
Sustainable development is based on socio-cultural
development, political stability and decorum,
economic growth and ecosystem protection, which
all relate to disaster risk reduction.
EIA : Environment Impact Assessment means assessing
proposed project on the basis of likely impact on the
330 Disaster Management

environment and people in nearby areas. In India an

Environment Information Center (EIC) has been set
up as clearinghouse of information since such
assessments require data, which is presently a constraint
in India. The Ministry of Environment and Forests
conducts EIAs in India. The EIC stores data in GIS
format.
Social Development : Social development implies the level of coherence
achieved in a society by institutional means. The more
the social capital, and the more it is institutionalised/
organised as committees/organisations the more is the
level of social development.
O&M : O&M or Organisation and Methods, is a technique of
procedural reform that is closely related to scientific
management precepts. It entails the study of procedures
with a view to simplifying them, such as rationalising
office work, which contributes economy and efficiency
at work; the intent, is to find the “one best way” of
“doing things.”

16.6 REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING

ADB, UN, and WB, 2005, India Post Tsunami Recovery Programme, Preliminary
Damage and Needs Assessment, New Delhi, India.
Alternate Economic Survey, 2004-05, Daanish Books.
Cannon, T. Twigg, J, Rowell J. 2003, Social Vulnerability, Sustainable Livelihoods and
Disasters, DFID, London.
Demeter, K., N. Ekin Erkan and A. Guner, The Role of Local Governments in
Reducing the Risk of Disasters.
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, National Disaster Management Division,
2004, Disaster Management in India – A Status Report.
IFRCRCS, 1998, World Disasters Report, Oxford University Press.
ISDR, 2002, “Living with Risk: A Global Review of Disaster Risk Reduction Initiatives”
at www.isdr.org
Sinha, Anil, A. 2003, Development of an Integrated Disaster Management System in
India: Importance of a Reliable Information System”, Paper presented at the International
Conference on Total Disaster Risk Management, at http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/
public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN019526.pdf
Stephenson, Rob. S, and Charles, Du Frane, 2002, University of Wisconsin Course
Material for Disaster Management Diploma Course, Disasters and Development, Part II:
Understanding and Exploiting Disaster Development Linkages, Pre-hospital and Disaster
Medicine, Part II Vol. 17, Number 3.
Disasters and Development 331

Sustainable Development Network, 2005, “ Disasters and Development”, at, http://

ipn.lexi.net/images/uploaded/12-41ea585ec6aa8—sdn-disasters-and-development.pdf.
Tearfund International, 2004, “Cost benefit analysis of community level disaster preparedness
interventions in India” (draft) cited in DFID, 2004.
Tenth Plan, 2002-07, Chapter 7, “Disaster Management: A Development Perspective”,
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, National Disaster Management Division.
Twigg, J. 2002, “Lessons from Disaster Preparedness”, Notes for presentation to
International Conference on Climate Change and Disaster Preparedness.
Twigg, John, “Disaster Risk Reduction – Mitigation, Preparedness in Development and
Emergency Programming” Chapter 4 Project Planning, Community Risk Assessment and
Action Planning Project, Register of Methodologies, Guidance Notes, Humanitarian
Practice Network, Overseas Development Institute, at www.odihpn.org
UNDP, 1999, Human Development Report, Globalisation with a Human Face at http:/
/www.undp.org/reports/global
White Phillip, Mark Pelling, Kunal Sen, David Seddon, Steve Russell, Robert Few,
Department for International Development, 2004, Disaster Risk Reduction: A Development
Concern, A scoping study on links between disaster risk reduction, poverty and development,
(funded by DFID), Overseas Development Group, at http://www.dfid.gov.uk/
World Bank, 2004, “Eluding Nature’s Wrath”, cited in DFID, 2004, at http://
www.worldbank.org
World Disasters Report, 2004, Building Community Resilience, International Red Cross
and Red Crescent Societies.
Websites
http://www.undmtp.org/english/disaster_development/disaster_development.pdf
http://www.undp.org/bcpr/disred/documents/tsunami/undp/rdrtsunamis.pdf
http://www.unisdr.org/eng/library/lib-terminology-engpercent20home.htm
http://www.undp.org/bcpr/disred/tsunami/
http://pdm.medicine.wisc.edu/20-1percent20PDFs/ContEd.pdf

16.7 ACTIVITIES
1) Explain with examples how development activities increase the vulnerability of the
community towards natural hazards.
2) Do you think disaster resistant features need to be added in all the development
activities carried out by the Government? Discuss.
3) Explain how urbanisation and population growth have accounted for a greater impact
in case of a disaster.
4) How have disasters set back decades of development? Explain this with suitable
examples.